Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: syntax

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: kogorman(at)pacbell(dot)net, PGSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: Re: syntax
Date: 2000-10-28 20:54:07
Message-ID: 200010282054.QAA19333@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you talking about the
> original grammar or your modified one?  Your modified one is erroneous
> because it will always associate successive UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT
> operators left-to-right; this does not meet the SQL spec which insists
> that INTERSECT binds more tightly than the other two.  Given that, I'm
> not surprised that the precedences have no effect.
> 
> > I don't see precedence in SQL92; set operations
> > seem to be left associative of equal priority.
> 
> Better take another look at the <query expression>, <query term>,
> <query primary> hierarchy then...

Is there something here to patch?  Hmm, I don't see anything...  I will
come back later.  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-10-28 20:57:26
Subject: Re: Proposal for DROP TABLE rollback mechanism
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-10-28 20:52:31
Subject: Numeric file names

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group